Is the King James Bible Infallible? King James Onlyism Exposed.

[Truster]

PS the Old and New Testaments were translated into Welsh in 1588. The NT was published in 1567.


http://www.llgc.org.uk/index.php?id=292

PPS I have on occasion heard rumours that the English translators used to compare their translation with the Welsh.

 

[kayaker]

If the woman who lived on/in the wall is in The Linage then the City still lives.

That would make it the oldest living city.

Most, un-illuminated Jews particularly (Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12), subscribe to the notion Rahab the harlot is in the lineage of Jesus. I'm not of that inclination, used to be, though. Then would you suggest Jericho, where Rahab was from, is the oldest living city, then? I would hold you to task that that city was destroyed, LOL! But, I do like the direction of your line of thinking!

kayaker

 

[Truster]

If the woman who lived on/in the wall is in The Linage then the City still lives.

That would make it the oldest living city.

Utter and complete 100% pure twaddle.

 

[kayaker]

PS the Old and New Testaments were translated into Welsh in 1588. The NT was published in 1567.


http://www.llgc.org.uk/index.php?id=292

PPS I have on occasion heard rumours that the English translators used to compare their translation with the Welsh.

Very interesting! I appreciate exploring other translations, the good, the bad, and the ugly... even though hardly familiar to me. But, I can get there pretty quickly using sites like biblehub, as I've tried to demonstrate, zeroing in on pivotal, rather than superfluous, verses. Furthermore, I consider fluency in the OT as paramount to NT accuracy brought forth in Genesis 4:23 KJV, Genesis 4:24 KJV. The problem appears most NT translations seem to perpetuate Jewish fables (Catholic, particularly), considering Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12, that Jesus brought to the table in Matthew 13:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, delineating a multitude believer from a disciple. I proffer Jewish fables include a harlot in Jesus' ancestry (David's ancestry for the Jews), contrary to Leviticus 21:1, 14, along with Ruth being a blood Moabite, contrary to Deuteronomy 23:3, 6. God 'wrote' the Law, and only God can change it... and He did being Judah's widowed daughter-in-law Tamar is found in the lineage of David and Jesus (Matthew 1:3 KJV), even though Judah's relationship with Tamar, who played the harlot, is contrary to Leviticus 18:15 KJV, Leviticus 21:7 KJV, Leviticus 21:9 KJV, Leviticus 21:13 KJV, Leviticus 21:15 KJV...

So, I trust you can imagine why I hold the opinion that OT fluency is paramount to more accurate NT translation, regardless of the language it is translated into or from. I would venture to imagine the 1588 Welsh Bible translated by William Morgan that you bring forth maintained the RaChab v. RaHab distinction. Do you have any comment on this?

kayaker

 

[Truster]

Very interesting! I appreciate exploring other translations, the good, the bad, and the ugly... even though hardly familiar to me. But, I can get there pretty quickly using sites like biblehub, as I've tried to demonstrate, zeroing in on pivotal, rather than superfluous, verses. Furthermore, I consider fluency in the OT as paramount to NT accuracy brought forth in Genesis 4:23 KJV, Genesis 4:24 KJV. The problem appears most NT translations seem to perpetuate Jewish fables (Catholic, particularly), considering Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12, that Jesus brought to the table in Matthew 13:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, delineating a multitude believer from a disciple. I proffer Jewish fables include a harlot in Jesus' ancestry (David's ancestry for the Jews), contrary to Leviticus 21:1, 14, along with Ruth being a blood Moabite, contrary to Deuteronomy 23:3, 6. God 'wrote' the Law, and only God can change it... and He did being Judah's widowed daughter-in-law Tamar is found in the lineage of David and Jesus (Matthew 1:3 KJV), even though Judah's relationship with Tamar, who played the harlot, is contrary to Leviticus 18:15 KJV, Leviticus 21:7 KJV, Leviticus 21:9 KJV, Leviticus 21:13 KJV, Leviticus 21:15 KJV...

So, I trust you can imagine why I hold the opinion that OT fluency is paramount to more accurate NT translation, regardless of the language it is translated into or from. I would venture to imagine the 1588 Welsh Bible translated by William Morgan that you bring forth maintained the RaChab v. RaHab distinction. Do you have any comment on this?

kayaker

No.

 

[john w]

Soooo, J Dubya... Which translation to you prefer?

Catch that, TOL audience? Bible correctors, in contrast to bible believers, always "prefer...like...use" a "bible," never believing any one of them, correcting them all. It's akin to going to a buffet....choose a little here, there...

Which bible do you believe?

I "use" a car manual,dictionary....I "prefer" fast food, over nutritious food. And?

And I should "prefer" the "Koran," as its less demanding than the Scripture, and this "Allah" guy is much less demanding than the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, mankind, in general, "prefers"/"likes" to "work their way" up to dem big, pearly gates, which is why most of the world rejects Christianity, and "prefers" to accept Romanism, Islam, Mormonism...........=the pride of men......They "like" it...They "prefer" it.........And thus, they are blind/lost.


And so it goes...Eccl. 1:9 KJV...


"Preferring....liking...using" any "bible," presupposes an authority over it.

Where can we get a copy of the true, pure, certain, sound......word of God today? That is, the objective words of the book, not a commentary, i.e., interpretation? Does it have a name? Identify it. Name that "is given by inspiration"(not "was") scripture, that you can press to your heart, and claim, "This is the pure, true, certain, sure, sound..............word of God...I believe every word of it."




I will wait..for an eternity.

 

[kayaker]

No.

Then do "messianists" subscribe to the notion King David had a harlot in his ancestry? If so... then, how is this reconciled considering Leviticus 21:1 KJV, Leviticus 21:14 KJV?

kayaker

 

[kayaker]

Catch that, TOL audience? Bible correctors, in contrast to bible believers, always "prefer...like...use" a "bible," never believing any one of them, correcting them all. It's akin to going to a buffet....choose a little here, there...

Which bible do you believe?

I "use" a car manual.dictionary....I "prefer" fast food, over nutritious food. And?

And I should "prefer" the "Koran," as its less demanding than the Scripture, and this "Allah" guy is much less demanding than the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, mankind, in general, "prefers"/"likes" to "work their way" up to dem big, pearly gates, which is why most of the world rejects Christianity, and "prefers" to accept Romanism, Islam, Mormonism...........=the pride of men......They "like" it...They "prefer" it.........And thus, they are blind/lost.


And so it goes...Eccl. 1:9 KJV...


"Preferring....liking...using" any "bible," presupposes an authority over it.

Where can we get a copy of the true, pure, certain, sound......word of God today? That is, the objective words of the book, not a commentary, i.e., interpretation? Does it have a name? Identify it. Name that "is given by inspiration"(not "was") scripture, that you can press to your heart, and claim, "This is the pure, true, certain, sure, sound..............word of God...I believe every word of it."




I will wait..for an eternity.

You've been waiting for the truth since eternity... so, what's new? Have a little problem wallowing in the Word with the great unwashed there, Jay Dubya? You've said nothing Scriptural r/t the OP. Why am I not surprised? Is "Eccl 1:9 KJV" your favorite verse corroborating your learn-nothing attitude? Why did you intentionally include "KJV" at the end of that verse? Don't tell me... you have a preference, then? I won't hold my breath. How about coming back to planet earth and tackle some Scripture? Afraid of the smell of your feet on fire, LOL! You're just a naysayer, dude. Get used to the aroma... it doesn't smell like coffee, btw. On second thought, I might hold my breath, ROFLOL!

kayaker

 

[Truster]

Then do "messianists" subscribe to the notion King David had a harlot in his ancestry? If so... then, how is this reconciled considering Leviticus 21:1 KJV, Leviticus 21:14 KJV?

kayaker

Rahab acted by trust (faith) and that means she was saved. She no longer carried the sin she was born into nor the sin of her former actions. Hebrews 11:31

 

[kayaker]

Rahab acted by trust (faith) and that means she was saved. She no longer carried the sin she was born into nor the sin of her former actions. Hebrews 11:31

The Jews say she was 'converted' as their justification of a harlot being in the lineage of David. The concept of 'conversion' was mentioned in the OT in Isaiah 1:27 KJV, Isaiah 6:10 KJV, Isaiah 60:5 KJV, and Psalm 51:13. Sounded quite prophetic, being 'converted.' On the other hand the notion of 'converted' was used in the NT in James 5:19 KJV, Matthew 13:15 KJV, Matthew 18:3 KJV, Mark 4:12 KJV, Luke 22:32 KJV, John 12:40 KJV, Acts 3:19 KJV, Acts 28:27 KJV. It's a Jewish notion folk were 'saved' in the OT, 'converting' to Judaism, Talmudic I might add... the Satanic religion Paul defected from, btw. I do admire Paul's reference to the faith of Rahab... But, Paul's respect didn't place Rahab in the lineage of Jesus, and clearly her faith was exemplary that she was spared utter destruction.

Jesus used the notion of a multitude believer (John 8:30 KJV) being "converted" into a disciple (John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV) as He'd previously noted the distinction between a believer and a disciple in Matthew 13:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, Matthew 13:15 KJV (v. Matthew 13:15 NKJV). So, there is a distinction between being a believer in Jesus, and being a disciple of Jesus.

I adhere to the notion Rahab followed the God of Israel, and Jeremiah kept his word 'saving' her and her family from utter destruction. Rahab was undoubtedly a very successful and knowledgeable business woman, likely selling fine linen (made from flax on her roof) to all the elite. I proffer Rahab's establishment was the first 'Victoria's Secrets'! Nonetheless, Rahab & Co. were not permitted entry into the congregation of the Lord following the destruction of Jericho. So, I appreciate your post... but, that doesn't place Rahab in the ancestry of David (and Jesus). I maintain that's a Jewish fable, perpetuated by the alleged 'Christ's one historic Catholic Church' who clearly relied on un-illuminated Jewish renderings (Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12) of the OT considering Genesis 4:23 KJV, Genesis 4:24 KJV mentioned in a prior post.

Many believe Rahab the harlot is in the ancestry of Jesus. I no longer subscribe to this notion since joining TOL and having my feet held to the fire on that one!

kayaker

 

[Truster]

The Jews say she was 'converted' as their justification of a harlot being in the lineage of David. The concept of 'conversion' was mentioned in the OT in Isaiah 1:27 KJV, Isaiah 6:10 KJV, Isaiah 60:5 KJV, and Psalm 51:13. Sounded quite prophetic, being 'converted.' On the other hand the notion of 'converted' was used in the NT in James 5:19 KJV, Matthew 13:15 KJV, Matthew 18:3 KJV, Mark 4:12 KJV, Luke 22:32 KJV, John 12:40 KJV, Acts 3:19 KJV, Acts 28:27 KJV. It's a Jewish notion folk were 'saved' in the OT, 'converting' to Judaism, Talmudic I might add... the Satanic religion Paul defected from, btw. I do admire Paul's reference to the faith of Rahab... But, Paul's respect didn't place Rahab in the lineage of Jesus, and clearly her faith was exemplary that she was spared utter destruction.

Jesus used the notion of a multitude believer (John 8:30 KJV) being "converted" into a disciple (John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV) as He'd previously noted the distinction between a believer and a disciple in Matthew 13:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, Matthew 13:15 KJV (v. Matthew 13:15 NKJV). So, there is a distinction between being a believer in Jesus, and being a disciple of Jesus.

I adhere to the notion Rahab followed the God of Israel, and Jeremiah kept his word 'saving' her and her family from utter destruction. Rahab was undoubtedly a very successful and knowledgeable business woman, likely selling fine linen (made from flax on her roof) to all the elite. I proffer Rahab's establishment was the first 'Victoria's Secrets'! Nonetheless, Rahab & Co. were not permitted entry into the congregation of the Lord following the destruction of Jericho. So, I appreciate your post... but, that doesn't place Rahab in the ancestry of David (and Jesus). I maintain that's a Jewish fable, perpetuated by the alleged 'Christ's one historic Catholic Church' who clearly relied on un-illuminated Jewish renderings (Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12) of the OT considering Genesis 4:23 KJV, Genesis 4:24 KJV mentioned in a prior post.

Many believe Rahab the harlot is in the ancestry of Jesus. I no longer subscribe to this notion since joining TOL and having my feet held to the fire on that one!

kayaker

You use a lot of words to say...nothing.

You do use the term ''I'' seven times so its obvious you hold great store in what ''I '' thinks.

 

[kayaker]

You use a lot of words to say...nothing.

Which is, unfortunately, very close to your Scriptural discernment. Quite possibly you have next to nothing to say, for the same reason. Rahab was 'saved,' therefore you're 'saved.' You saved Jesus from the alleged harlotry in His ancestry! Since you can 'save' Jesus, then 'saving' yourself is a walk in the park, then? Have you ever considered Jeremiah to be your messiah? There is a striking parallel. Sorry I rattled the timbers in your exclusive 'salvation' paradigm of your "messianist" religion... So, don't ask me... go check out the story of Rahab being excluded from the congregation of the Lord following the destruction of Jericho. Rattle your own 'salvation' paradigm... been in the Books for more than a few years, now. But, surely don't use a Bible like the KJV that distinguished RaCHab being in Jesus' ancestry (Matthew 1:5 KJV), and NOT Rahab the harlot (Matthew 1:5 NKJV).

kayaker

 

[kayaker]

You use a lot of words to say...nothing.

You do use the term ''I'' seven times so its obvious you hold great store in what ''I '' thinks.

Btw... I study for myself. Where do U arrive at the notion Rahab the harlot was in Jesus' ancestry? Surely you figured that one out, or, U might find yourself looking for another church or synagogue. Think about Matthew 8:19 KJV, Matthew 8:20 KJV while you're on your great quest for trUth, obviously not found in your chUrch!

kayaker

 

[dialm]

Most, un-illuminated Jews particularly (Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12), subscribe to the notion Rahab the harlot is in the lineage of Jesus. I'm not of that inclination, used to be, though. Then would you suggest Jericho, where Rahab was from, is the oldest living city, then? I would hold you to task that that city was destroyed, LOL! But, I do like the direction of your line of thinking!

kayaker

A tight corner if spelling is the key since the 1611 contains a lot of different ways of spelling.

The King of the City remains alive and well. His headquarters are located in the rear of the opposing army. Exactly what Joshua was trying to avoid. Lucky for us that an intriguing line was let down from above.

 

[Truster]

This message is hidden because kayaker is on your ignore list.

 

[john w]

You've been waiting for the truth since eternity... so, what's new? Have a little problem wallowing in the Word with the great unwashed there, Jay Dubya? You've said nothing Scriptural r/t the OP. Why am I not surprised? Is "Eccl 1:9 KJV" your favorite verse corroborating your learn-nothing attitude? Why did you intentionally include "KJV" at the end of that verse? Don't tell me... you have a preference, then? I won't hold my breath. How about coming back to planet earth and tackle some Scripture? Afraid of the smell of your feet on fire, LOL! You're just a naysayer, dude. Get used to the aroma... it doesn't smell like coffee, btw. On second thought, I might hold my breath, ROFLOL!

kayaker

"Scriptural," you muze, little bible corrector/rejector/agnostic? Well, drone, if you would just identify this "desert mirage," "theoretical" "scripture," I'll give you the honor of discussing this with me.

Where can we get a copy of the true, pure, certain, sound......"the Word...Scripture"(your words)today? Does it have a name? Identify it. Name that "is given by inspiration"(not "was") scripture, that you can press to your heart, and claim, "This is the pure, true, certain, sure, sound..............word of God...I believe every word of it."




"Don't tell me... you have a preference, then? I won't hold my breath."-bible corrector.

I've answered, cliche breath. I have in my hand the true, sure, sound, certain word of God, for English speaking people. I believe every last word of it, and do not submit it to my correction. I submit to its correction.


That is the difference between me, a bible believer, and you, a bible corrector.


Contrasts.


What do you have?

Let me guess: You prefer/like/use any "the bible," that agrees with your doctrine, and talks to you, like you talk to your "dude" friends, on your cell phone, eh toots? A "convenient, friendly," "god."


"ROFLOL..dude"

You: In the beginning, the Big Dude created the....

 

[kayaker]

A tight corner if spelling is the key since the 1611 contains a lot of different ways of spelling.

The King of the City remains alive and well. His headquarters are located in the rear of the opposing army. Exactly what Joshua was trying to avoid. Lucky for us that an intriguing line was let down from above.

Which city, Jericho? LOL! Well... the spelling of the name of the wife of Booz is quite significant. One spelling puts a harlot in the 'name' of Jesus, while the other spelling does not. Furthermore, Rahab & Co. were not initially permitted into the congregation following the conquest (Joshua 6:23 KJV). The Septuagint maintained the Greek spelling of Rahab referring to the harlot of Jericho in the OT, and in the NT regarding Paul's and James' references, AND the Greek Septuagint noted the spelling distinction of RaChab in Matthew 1:5 KJV. I've checked over the timelines, and it appears the closest I can get is Rahab being about 60 y/o when her life span overlapped with Salmon's. Their hooking-up to sire Booz seems pretty unlikely considering the fertility component.

Indeed Dial, there is a striking parallel with Joshua and Jesus (did I get those names mixed up?)! We are blessed beyond imagination! Do you have any OT Scripture that suggests a harlot is an acceptable wife of an OT priest, then? I've already addressed Tamar, the put-away-wife who played the harlot being contrary to Leviticus... God personally slew Judah's two elder Canaanite sons. That oughta be a pretty solid indicator no Canaanites would be in the lineage of Jesus, as was Judah's wife (Genesis 38:1, 2, 1Chronicles 2:3). Such union was contraindicated in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, that Joshua reiterated before the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 3:9, 10. So, I don't think Joshua would have approved of a Canaanite in Messiah's ancestry.

However, there was a door for Ishmaelites and Hittites to enter the congregation of the Lord being the third generation Edomites in Deuteronomy 23:7, 8, 9. But, I don't hear them becoming spouses of priests. Solomon's folly should bear reflection on this case; cost him a kingdom!

kayaker

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Never really thought about it, in terms of the King James, perse. There was this preacher on the radio a long time ago, who had one foot in hell and flames licking the ears of people who strayed into some other translation. He was really annoyingly loud and choleric, was one of those control freaks, trying to shove their denominational prejudices down other peoples' throats, constantly.

I do believe the King James a more splendid translation, my favorite, with a unique poetic precision of language, while maintaining accuracy, as opposed to a good Bible, but more choppy, linguistically, NASB. The KJV is a no doubt a God-send, and a monumental work. But your criticism of the notion of being infallible? I don't know, but have to wonder why not, since you have no reservations to declare all Popes infallible? We should not err and paint ourselves into a corner of the pot calling the kettle black, if we're to maintain some modicum of credibility. I mean, just saying...

Put it this way, on the one hand you have the word of God, on the other hand the word of Pope Siredafew, on the side.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You: In the beginning, the Big Dude created the....

And shortly thereafter, he told Adam and Eve TTYL.

 

[john w]

And shortly thereafter, he told Adam and Eve TTYL.

Yes, Mayor-"wink."


I will not waste another 5 seconds of my time in this life, "answering" the foolish questions of some stupid bible mystic/agnostic, with no faith in any bible, since the book does not exist,"The Word of God, the scripture, the perfect, pure, inerrant word of God cannot be found on any printed page," who simply is jealous of me, and you, and...because we won't jump in the ditch with him/her, and the rest of the Laodicean sewer rats. If they were "honest" men/women, about their silly questions, taught to them by silly men/women, wouldn't they have gotten down on their knees, and asked the LORD God, their trap "questions?" Did they do that? Tee hee("the modern English").

You see, I did that. That is what bible believers do. I have taken every question I ever had about the credibility, authenticity, trust worthiness, and reliability of my bible, the KJB, to the author and finisher of my faith-the Lord Jesus Christ. I never asked any man/woman a question, about a book, he/she cannot fully understand, especially, in their case, if that book does not exist, much less explain, much less write.

But, heh, that's just me-a wacko bible believer.